Otter Tail Power Co. is asking state regulators for permission to increase a special charge that its electric customers now pay to finance the utility's North Dakota wind energy projects.
The charge, which was first approved by North Dakota's Public Service Commission in May, is now 0.193 cents per kilowatt-hour. It adds $1.45 to the electric bill of an Otter Tail residential customer who uses 750 kwh of power each month.
Otter Tail has asked the commission for permission to raise the charge to 0.510 cents per kwh, beginning in January. The higher charge would mean the same residential customer would pay an extra $3.83 monthly.
Otter Tail has about 57,000 North Dakota customers. The utility, which is based in Fergus Falls, Minn., provides electricity to Wahpeton, Devils Lake and Jamestown, as well as dozens of smaller rural communities.
Susan Wefald, the commission's president, said Otter Tail customers who are curious about the charge may request a public hearing. The commission may hold an informal hearing on its own before it decides the case, she said.
Otter Tail first asked to levy the charge after it acquired an ownership stake in a recently built wind farm south of Langdon in northeastern North Dakota. It bought 40.5 megawatts of output from the Langdon project, which is capable of generating 159 megawatts of electricity.
Otter Tail also is acquiring 48 megawatts of the 200-megawatt output of the Ashtabula Wind Center, which is being built east of Lake Ashtabula in Barnes County. The utility has said it is investing $121 million in the project.
Commissioner Kevin Cramer said allowing the increased charge may help encourage more utility investment in North Dakota wind projects.
North Dakota ratepayers may prefer that Otter Tail have its own stake in wind projects instead of buying electricity on the more expensive spot market and passing the costs along to them, Cramer said.
"Overall, the cost of this wind may very well reduce the overall cost to ratepayers," Cramer said. "The market price... for electricity has been so high, and there's no reason to expect that it's going to go down."
Europe EV Sales Slowdown signals waning incentives, economic uncertainty, and supply chain constraints, threatening climate targets and net-zero emissions goals while highlighting the need for charging infrastructure, affordable batteries, and policy support across key markets.
Key Points
Europe's early-2024 EV registrations fell as incentives waned and supply gaps persisted, putting climate targets at risk.
✅ Fewer subsidies and tax breaks cut EV affordability
✅ Inflation and recession fears dampen car purchases
✅ Supply-chain and lithium constraints limit availability
A recent slowdown in Europe's electric vehicle (EV) sales raises serious concerns about the region's ability to achieve its ambitious climate targets. After years of steady growth, new EV registrations declined in key markets like Norway, Germany, and the U.K. in early 2024. Experts are warning that this slump jeopardizes the transition away from fossil fuels and could undermine Europe's commitment to a net-zero emissions future.
Factors Behind the Decline
Several factors are contributing to the slowdown in EV sales:
Reduced Incentives: Many European countries have scaled back generous subsidies and tax breaks for EV purchases. While these incentives played a crucial role in driving early adoption, their reduction has made EVs less financially attractive for some consumers, with many U.K. buyers citing higher prices even after discounts.
End of ICE Ban Support: Public support for phasing out gasoline and diesel-powered cars by 2035, a key European Union policy, appears to be waning in some areas. Without robust support for this measure, consumers may be less inclined to embrace the transition to electric vehicles.
Economic Uncertainty: Rising inflation and fears of a recession in Europe have made consumers hesitant to invest in big-ticket purchases like new cars, regardless of fuel type. This economic uncertainty is impacting both electric and conventional vehicle sales.
Supply Chain Constraints: Ongoing supply chain disruptions and shortages of raw materials like lithium continue to impact the availability of affordable electric vehicles. This means potential buyers face long wait times or inflated prices even when they're ready to embrace EVs.
Consequences for Europe's Green Agenda
The decline in EV sales threatens Europe's plans to reduce carbon emissions and become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, aligning with a broader push for electricity to address the climate dilemma across Europe. The transportation sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the rapid electrification of vehicles is a pillar of Europe's decarbonization strategy.
The current slump highlights the need for continued policy support for the EV market, as EVs still trail gas models in many markets today, to ensure long-term growth and affordability for consumers. Without action, experts fear that Europe may find itself locked into a dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come, making its climate targets unreachable.
A Global Concern
Europe is a leader in electric vehicle policies and technology, during a period when global EV sales climbed markedly. The recent slowdown, however, sends a worrying signal to other regions around the world aiming to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles, including the U.S. market's Q1 dip as a cautionary example. It underscores the importance of sustained government support, investment in charging infrastructure and overcoming supply chain challenges to secure a future of widespread electric vehicle use, with many forecasts suggesting mass adoption within a decade if support continues.
Nova Scotia Power solar charge proposes an $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering customers, citing grid costs. UARB review, carbon credits, rate hikes, and solar industry impacts fuel political and consumer backlash.
Key Points
A proposed $8/kW monthly grid access fee on net metered solar customers, delayed to Feb 1, 2023, pending UARB review.
✅ $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering
✅ Delay to Feb 1, 2023 after industry and political pushback
✅ UARB review; debate over grid costs and carbon credits
Nova Scotia Power has pushed back by a year the start date of a proposed new charge for customers who generate electricity and sell it back to the grid, following days of concern from the solar industry and politicians worried that it will damage the sector.
The company applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) last week for various changes, including a "system access charge" of $8 per kilowatt monthly on net metered installations, and the province cannot order the utility to lower rates under current law. The vast majority of the province's 4,100 net metering customers are residential customers with solar power, according to the application.
The proposed charge would have come into effect Tuesday if approved, but Nova Scotia Power said in a news release Tuesday it will change the date in its filing from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 1, 2023.
"We understand that the solar industry was taken off guard," utility CEO Peter Gregg said in an interview.
"There could have been an opportunity to have more conversations in advance."
Gregg said the utility will meet with members of the solar industry over the next year to work on finding solutions that support the sector's growth, while addressing what NSP sees as an inequity in the net metering system.
NSP recognized that customers who choose solar invest a significant amount and pay for the electricity they use, but they don't pay for costs associated with accessing the electrical grid when they need energy, such as on cold winter evenings when the sun is not shining.
"I know that's hit a nerve, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an issue," Gregg said.
He said this is an issue utilities are navigating around North America, where seasonal rate designs have sparked consumer backlash in New Brunswick, and NSP is open to hearing ideas for other models of charges or fees.
The utility's suggested system access charge closely resembles one proposed in California, which has also raised major concerns from the solar industry and been criticized by the likes of Elon Musk, and has parallels to Massachusetts solar demand charges as well.
Although the "solar profile" of Nova Scotia and California is very different, with far more solar customers in that state, and in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, NDP criticism of 8% hikes has intensified affordability debates, Gregg said the fundamental issues are the same.
For those with a typical 10-kilowatt solar system, which generates around $1,800 of electricity a year, the new charge would mean those customers would be required to pay $960 back to NSP. That would roughly double the length of time it takes for those customers to pay off their investment for the panels.
David Brushett, chair of Solar Nova Scotia, said he relayed concerns from solar installers and others in the industry to Gregg on Monday.
Brushett said the year delay is a positive first step, but he is still calling on the province to take a strong stance against the application, which has led to customers cancelling their panel installations and companies considering layoffs.
"There's still an urgency to this situation that hasn't been addressed, and we need to kind of protect the industry," he said Tuesday.
NSP's original application proposed exempting net metering customers who enrolled before Feb. 1, 2022, from the charge for 25 years after they sign up. But any benefit would be lost if those customers sold their home, and the exemption wouldn't extend to the new buyers, said Brushett.
Carbon offsets missing from equation: industry Brushett said NSP "completely ignored" the fact that it's getting free carbon offset credits from homeowners who use solar energy under the provincial cap and trade program.
If the net metering system continues as is, NSP has said non-solar customers would pay about $55 million between now and 2030. That number assumes about 2,000 people sign up for net metering each year over the next nine years.
When asked whether those carbon emission credits were factored into the calculations for the proposed charge, Gregg said, "I don't believe in the current structure it is, but it's something that certainly we'd be open to hearing about."
Brushett said his group is finalizing a legal response to NSP's proposal and has already filed an official complaint against the company with the UARB.
Base charge on actual electrical output: customer At least one shareholder in NSP parent company Emera is considering selling his shares in response to the application.
Joe Hood, a shareholder from Middle Sackville, said the proposed charge won't apply to his existing 11.16-kilowatt solar system, but if it did, it would cost him $1,071 a year.
"I am offended that a company I would invest in would do this to the solar industry in Nova Scotia," he said.
According to his meter, Hood said he pushed 9,600 kilowatt hours of solar electricity to the grid last year— some only for a brief period, and all of which was used by his home by the end of the year.
Under the proposed charge, someone with one solar panel who goes away on vacation in the summer would push all their electricity to the grid, and be charged far less than someone with 10 panels who has used all their own power and hasn't pushed anything.
"Nova Scotia Power's argument is that it's an issue with the grid. Well, then it should be based on what touches the grid," Hood said.
Far from actually making the system fair for everyone, Hood said this charge places solar only in the hands of the super-rich or NSP, with projects like its community solar gardens in Amherst, N.S.
Green Party suggests legislation update Nova Scotia's Green Party also said Tuesday that Gregg's arguments of fairness are misleading, echoing earlier premier opposition to a 14% hike on rates.
The party is calling for an update to the Electricity Act that would "prevent penalizing any activity that helps Nova Scotia reach its emissions target," aligning with calls to make the electricity system more accountable to residents.
In its application, NSP has also asked to increase electricity rates for residential customers by at least 10 per cent over the next three years, amid debate that culminated in a 14% rate hike approval by regulators.
The company wants to maintain its nine per cent rate of return.
NSP expects to earn $153 million this year, $192 million in 2023, and $213 million in 2024 from its rate of return.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
FPL Rate Increase Proposal 2026-2029 outlines $9B base-rate hikes as Florida grows, citing residential demand, grid infrastructure investments, energy mix diversification, and Florida PSC review impacting customer bills, reliability, and fuel price volatility mitigation.
Key Points
A $9B base-rate plan FPL filed with the Florida PSC to fund growth, grid upgrades, and energy diversification through 2029.
✅ Adds 275k since 2021; +335k customers projected by 2029.
✅ Monthly bills rise to about $157 by 2029, up ~22% total.
✅ Investments in poles, wires, transformers, substations, renewables.
Florida Power & Light (FPL), the state's largest utility provider, has submitted a proposal to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a substantial increase in customer base rates over the next four years, amid ongoing scrutiny, including a recent hurricane surcharge controversy that heightened public attention.
Rationale Behind the Rate Increase
FPL's request is primarily influenced by Florida's robust population growth. Since 2021, the utility has added about 275,000 customers and projects an additional 335,000 by the end of 2029. This surge necessitates significant investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure, including poles, wires, transformers, and substations, to maintain reliable service. Moreover, FPL aims to diversify its energy mix to shield customers from fuel price volatility, even as the state declined federal solar incentives that could influence renewable adoption, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.
Impact on Customer Bills
If approved, the proposed rate increases would affect residential customers as follows:
2026: An estimated increase of $11.52 per month, raising the typical bill to $145.66.
2027: An additional $6.05 per month, bringing the bill to $151.71.
2028: A further increase of $3.64 per month, totaling $155.35.
2029: An extra $2.06 per month, resulting in a final bill of $157.41.
These adjustments represent a cumulative increase of approximately 22% over the four-year period, while in other regions some customers face sharper spikes, such as Pennsylvania's winter price increases this season.
Comparison with Previous Rate Hikes
This proposal follows a series of rate increases approved in recent years, as California electricity bills have soared and prompted calls for action in that state. For instance, Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) received approval for rate hikes totaling $287.9 million in 2025, with additional increases planned for 2026 and 2027. Consumer groups have expressed intentions to challenge these rate hikes, indicating a trend of growing scrutiny over utility rate adjustments.
Regulatory Review Process
The PSC is scheduled to review FPL's rate increase proposal in the coming months. A staff recommendation is expected by March 14, 2025, with a final decision anticipated at a commission conference on March 20, 2025. This process allows for public input and thorough evaluation of the proposed rate changes, while elsewhere some utilities anticipate stabilization, such as PG&E's 2025 outlook in California.
Customer and Consumer Advocacy Responses
The proposed rate hikes have elicited concerns from consumer advocacy groups. Organizations like Food & Water Watch have criticized the scale of the increase, labeling it as the largest rate hike request in U.S. history, amid mixed signals such as Gulf Power's one-time 40% bill decrease earlier this year. They argue that such substantial increases could place undue financial strain on households, especially those with fixed incomes.
Additionally, the Florida Public Service Commission has faced challenges in approving rate hikes for other utilities, such as TECO, and a recent Florida court decision on electricity monopolies that may influence the policy landscape, with consumer groups planning to appeal these decisions. This backdrop of heightened scrutiny suggests that FPL's proposal will undergo rigorous examination.
As Florida continues to experience rapid growth, balancing the need for infrastructure development and reliable energy services with the financial impact on consumers remains a critical challenge. The PSC's forthcoming decisions will play a pivotal role in shaping the state's energy landscape, influencing both the economy and the daily lives of Floridians.
EU Energy Price Crisis drives soaring electricity bills as natural gas sets pay-as-clear power prices; leaders debate price caps, common gas purchasing, market reform, renewables, and ETS changes amid Ukraine war supply shocks.
Key Points
A surge in gas-driven power costs linked to pay-as-clear pricing, supply shocks, and policy rifts across the EU market.
✅ Gas sets marginal power price via pay-as-clear mechanism
✅ Spain pushes decoupling and temporary price caps
✅ EU weighs joint gas buying, efficiency, more renewables
Nothing grabs politicians' attention faster than angry voters, and they've had plenty to be furious about as natural gas and electricity bills have soared to stomach-churning levels in recent months, as this UK natural gas analysis illustrates across markets.
That's led to a scramble to figure out ways to get those costs down, with emergency price-limiting measures under discussion — but that's turning out to be very difficult, so the likeliest result is that EU leaders meeting later this week won't come up with any solutions.
“There is no single easy answer to tackle the high electricity prices given the diversity of situations among Member States. Some options are only suitable for specific national contexts,” the European Commission said on Wednesday. “They all carry costs and drawbacks.”
The initial problem was a surge in gas demand in Asia last year coupled with lower-than-normal Russian gas deliveries that left European gas storage at unusually low levels. Now the war in Ukraine is making matters even worse, as pressure grows for the bloc to rapidly cut its imports of Russian oil, coal and natural gas — although some national leaders reject the economic costs that would entail.
"We will end this dependence as quickly as we can, but to do that from one day to the next would mean plunging our country and all of Europe into a recession," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned on Wednesday.
The problem for the bloc is that its liberalized electricity market is tightly tied to the price of natural gas; power prices are set by the final input needed to balance demand — called pay-as-clear — which in most cases is set by natural gas. That's led to countries with large amounts of cheaper renewable or nuclear energy seeing sharp spikes in power prices thanks to the cost of that final bit of gas-fired electricity.
A Spanish-led coalition that includes Portugal, Belgium and Italy wants deep reforms to the EU price model, fueling a broader electricity market revamp debate in Brussels.
Others, such as the Netherlands and Germany, strongly oppose such an approach, echoing how nine countries oppose reforms at the EU level, and want to focus on cushioning the effects of the high prices on consumers and businesses, while letting the market operate.
A third group, largely in Central Europe, wants to use the price spike to revamp or scrap the bloc's Emissions Trading System and to rethink its Fit for 55 climate legislation.
The European Commission has been holding the middle ground — arguing that the current market model makes sense, but encouraging countries to boost the amount of renewable electricity, in a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for Europe, to cut energy use and increase efficiency.
In draft conclusions of this week's European Council summit, seen by POLITICO, EU leaders, amid a France-Germany tussle over reform, call for things like a common approach to buying gas, aimed at preventing countries from competing against each other. But there's no big movement on electricity prices.
“It does not seem realistic to expect a result on the energy discussion at this European Council,” one diplomat said, stressing that the governments will need to see more analysis before committing to any more steps.
Looking for action Spain wanted a much more robust response. Madrid has been arguing since last summer for “decoupling” gas from the electricity market; together with Portugal, it also mulled limiting the wholesale price of electricity to €180 per megawatt-hour — a proposal that Spain abandoned under fire from industry and consumer groups.
Now Madrid is pushing to get a specific permission in the summit's final conclusions that would allow countries to voluntarily apply certain short-term solutions such as gas price cap strategies, according to a draft with track changes seen by POLITICO.
The issue with a cap is if gas prices are higher than the cap, Spain might not be able to buy any gas.
V.C. Summer nuclear plant leak update: Dominion Energy repaired a valve in the reactor cooling system; radioactive water stayed within containment, NRC oversight continues as power output ramps toward full operation.
Key Points
A minor valve leak in the reactor cooling system contained onsite; Dominion repaired it as the plant resumes power.
✅ Valve leak in piping to steam generators, not environmental release.
✅ Radioactive water remained in containment, monitored per NRC rules.
✅ Plant ramping from 17% power; full operations may take days.
The V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, which has been shut down since early November because of a pipe leak, is expected to begin producing energy in a few days, a milestone comparable to a new U.S. reactor startup reported recently.
Dominion Energy says it has fixed the small leak in a pipe valve that allowed radioactive water to drip out. The company declined to say when the plant would be fully operational, but spokesman Ken Holt said that can take several days, amid broader discussions about the stakes of early nuclear closures across the industry.
The plant was at 17 percent power Wednesday, he said, as several global nuclear project milestones continue to be reported this year.
Holt, who said Dominion is still investigating the cause, said water that leaked was part of the reactor cooling system. While the water came in contact with nuclear fuel in the reactor, the water never escaped the plant's containment building and into the environment, Holt said.
He characterized the valve leak as '"uncommon" but not unexpected. The nuclear leak occurred in piping that links the nuclear reactor with the power plant's steam generators. Hundreds of pipes are in that part of the nuclear plant, a complexity often cited in the energy debate over struggling nuclear plants nationwide.
"There is always some level of leakage when you are operating, but it is contained and monitored, and when it rises to a certain level, you may take action to stop it," Holt said.
A nuclear safety watchdog has criticized Dominion for not issuing a public notice about the leak, but both the company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the amount was so small it did not require notice.
The V.C. Summer Nuclear plant is about 25 miles northwest of Columbia in Fairfield County. It was licensed in the early 1980s. At one point, Dominion's predecessor, SCE&G, partnered with state owned Santee Cooper to build two more reactors there, even as new reactors in Georgia were taking shape. But the companies walked away from the project in 2017, citing high costs and troubles with its chief contractor, Westinghouse, even as closures such as Three Mile Island's shutdown continued to influence policy.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
